SRI SURI PAYALA v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

- 10 -

164(1A) of the Constitution of India and on the basis that they constitute an office of profit as per the criteria laid down by the constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal (Supra).

iii. Direct the Respondents to immediately remove the appointees from their respective positions and withdraw all pecuniary benefits and facilities accorded to them in connection with these appointments.

iv. Cancel the primary membership of the appointed MLAs and MLCs from the Karnataka Legislature on the grounds that their appointments and associated pecuniary benefits violate the principles of natural justice and the office of profit rule, thereby disqualifying them from holding legislative positions.

v. Grant any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity, considering the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is the petitioner's case that a large number of members elected to the Legislative Assembly in the State of Karnataka have been appointed to Boards, Corporations, and other posts with a rank equivalent to that of a Minister and also the associated pecuniary benefits. The petitioner contends that the same violates the second proviso to Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, which restricts the total number of Ministers in any State to 15% of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of the State, and require that the total number be brought in conformity with the provisions of the said clause within the stipulated period.

- 11 -

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, there are 224 members in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and further 75 members in the Legislative Council. He submits that, accordingly, the maximum number of Ministers permitted under Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India is 33 (15% of 224). Notwithstanding the said limit, approximately 159 persons are drawing remuneration equivalent to that of the Ministers, along with the other attendant benefits, by virtue of their being appointed in various Corporations, Boards, etc.

4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent State countered the aforesaid submissions. He submits that although the persons who are appointed to Boards and Corporations may be drawing a salary equivalent to that of the Ministers, they are not Ministers for the purposes of Article 164 of the Constitution of India. He also referred to the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Dr. K. V. Vijayakumar v. State of Karnataka¹and Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka²in support of the said contention.

1

Writ Petition No.12628/2020, DD 27.11.2020 2023 SCC Online KAR 59

2

- 12 -

5. He also submitted that the present petition is not in the public interest, but to serve private interests. He pointed out that the petitioner is an aspirant for certain posts on which members of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council may be appointed. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 3 of the Statement of Objections, which reads as follows:

" 3. It is submitted that, the present case is not a public interest litigation as the same is camouflaged to foster the personal disputes and gains of the Petitioner. The Petitioner herein, is an Engineer - in - Chief level officer employed by the Karnataka State Pollution Board. The Petitioner herein, has filed multiple cases against the State of Karnataka which are as follows:

a) WP .No.20052 of 2024 wherein the Petitioner had claimed for the position of CEO of E-governance amongst other consequential reliefs;

b) WP.No.30282 of 2024 wherein the Petitioner claimed for the position of in-charge Chairman Member Secretary of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board along with other consequential reliefs and;

c) WP No.1458 of 2025 wherein the Petitioner was seeking to challenge the appointment of Member Secretary of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board along with other consequential reliefs."

6. Insofar as the question of whether the number of persons appointed as Ministers falls foul of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India is concerned, the same is covered by the

- 13 -

earlier decision of this Court in Dr K.B. Vijayakumar (supra). In that case, the challenge was to the appointment of Chairpersons to various Boards and Corporations, who had been given benefits which are available to Hon'ble Ministers. In this regard, the Court had observed as under:

"6. As far as the Chairpersons of Boards and Corporations are concerned, there is no material placed on record to show that the said posts have trappings of the post of Hon'ble Ministers. Merely because salary and other perquisites which are admissible to the post of Hon'ble Ministers are provided to the Chairpersons, they cannot become Hon'ble Ministers. The nature of the powers which they exercise and their duties are totally different. Therefore, while testing the compliance of Clause (1A) of Article 164 of the Constitution, only those Hon'ble Ministers will have to be taken into consideration who have been appointed under Article 164 of the Constitution. Admittedly, 28 Hon'ble Ministers have been appointed. Thus, the percentage does not exceed 15%."

7. In Umapathy S. (supra), this Court had considered the challenge to the appointment of persons as Political Secretaries, Chief Advisor, and Media Advisors. In this context, the Court had held as under:

"3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. We decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made by the learned AGA. Article 164 provides for the appointment of Chief Minister by the Governor and of other Ministers on the advice of the

- 14 -

Chief Minister. Clause (1A) of this Article which has been introduced by 91st Amendment Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.1.2004 prescribes the ceiling limit as to the number of Ministers in a State. The text of the said clause is as under:

"The total number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of Ministers in a State shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of that State."

4. The above text is as clear as gangetic waters. It is nobody's case that the private respondents have been appointed as Ministers. If the private respondents were appointed as Ministers, there could have been scope for the invocation of subject provision of the Article. Merely because a Cabinet Status is conferred on a particular appointee, that per se does not make him a Minister within the meaning of Article 164. These respondents are appointed to assist the Chief Minister/Ministers and they are not functioning as the Ministers in the literal sense. Therefore the provision pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not attracted."

8. The learned Advocate General has also referred to the Government Order dated 22.09.2017, which stipulates that members who have "been appointed as Chairman of various

- 15 -

9. The petitioner also seeks to raise other challenges, including as to the legal framework for payment of salaries and remuneration. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the challenge in this petition.

10. We also find merit in the contention that the present petition is not entirely in public interest, but is also occasioned by the petitioner's aspirations for certain posts. It is settled that the petitioner, who seeks to file a public interest litigation, is bound to disclose his possible interest in the litigation. In this case, the petitioner has failed to make the full disclosure as required.

11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

12. All pending applications are also disposed of.

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA)

JUDGE

ND/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20